Category Archives: Free Speech

Photograph by Nathaniel St. Clair

I was a student in the late 2000s when I had my first brush with cancel culture. A campus group had invited Nick Griffin a racist Holocaust denier and leader of a fascist British political party, among other charming things to speak.

Many shocked students, including me, called Griffins views vile and warned that violent extremists might come to support him. Eventually, the group rethought the invitation and canceled the event. Thank heavens.

No ones speech had beendenied. Others had simply exercised theirown.

Yet a few short years later, campus protests like these became abete noirefor right-wing politicians, who produced countless diatribes against woke mobs and the free speech crisis on campus. Then, with ample backing from well heeled donors, they launched an actual war on speech, on campus and beyond.

Protest has never been a threat to speech itisfree speech. What weve learned is that the real threat is inequality.

Consider this springs campus protests against Israels war on Gaza and U.S. support for it.

Conservative politicians whod thrown fits over free speech on campus cheered as police officersroughed upandarrestedstudent protesters. Some even called to deploythe National Guard, which infamously murdered four Kent State students during the Vietnam era.

Meanwhile billionaire CEOs like Bill Ackman led campaigns toout students whod participated in the protestsand blacklist them from employment.

Cynically casting these oftenJewish-led protestsas anti-semitic, Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-NY) who has ahistory of embracing truly anti-semitic conspiracy theorieshauled several university presidents before Congressto answer for why the protests hadnt been shut down more brutally.

When University of Pennsylvania president Liz Magill feebly defended the First Amendment, a$100 million donor complainedand Magill was compelled to resign. Under similar donor pressure, Harvard President Claudine Gayfollowed suit. And Stefanik? Sheraked in campaign cash.

Of course, high-end donors are shaping what can and cant be saidinsidethe classroom as well.

Corporate and billionaire-backed groups like the American Legislative Exchange Council and Of The People havepoured enormous sumsinto backing laws that ban books, restrict what history can and cant be taught, and severely curtail classroom instruction on race, gender, or sexuality.

Manypublic librariesanduniversitiesface defunding for carrying materials these billionaire-backed politicians dont like. And in some redstates, teachers and school librarians maynow face felony chargesforrunning afoul of state censors.

In other cases the public square itself is falling under sustained assault from extreme wealth. For example, after spending a fortune to buy Twitter, billionaire Elon Musk proclaimed himself a free speech absolutist andpromptly eliminated nearly all content moderation.

But perhaps absolutist was a relative term.

As threats and hate speech predictably flooded the platform, Musk threatened a thermonuclear lawsuit against a watchdog group that cataloged the growing trend. He also appeared tosuspend journalists that covered him critically and otherwise censored users who espoused causes he didnt care for, likeLGBTQ rights or racial justice.

A parallel problem has played out more quietly in local news, with beleaguered American newspapersnow outnumbered by dark money pink slime news sites, which peddle misinformation while posing as local news outlets.

Lying, of course, is usually protected speech. But when its backed by big money and linked to a sustained, state-backed assault on speech to the contrary, then weve badly warped the field on which free speech is supposed to play out.

Similarly, when the Supreme Court rules thatcash paymentseven bribes are free speech, then those of us with less cash get a lot less free speech.

Extreme inequality threatens our First Amendment right not only to speak freely, but to assemble together and petition our representatives.

Alongside real campaign finance reform and anti-corruption laws, higher taxes on billionaires and corporations would leave them with less money to spend warping our politics, classrooms, and public squares. So would stronger unions who can win pay raises and social movements that can protect their communities from retribution.

If we want an equal right to speech, we need a more equal country.

This article first appeared onInsideSources.com.

Go here to read the rest:
Extreme Inequality is a Threat to Free Speech - CounterPunch

The recent Harvard Crimson op-ed by professor and dean of social science Lawrence D. Bobo calling for sanctions against faculty members who criticize Harvard University leadership with the intent to arouse the intervention of external actors into university business was stunning.

The piece sparked another controversy, and backlash, that Harvard may deserve but doesnt need, given the parade of headlines that have left its formerly stellar reputation in shreds. It was also an insult to alumni, like us, who care about the school, dont see ourselves as external actors, and have a legitimate stake in the debate about how to get Harvard back on track.

When we attended Harvard, we learned that our thinking improved through critical analysis and debate. Criticism exposed the flaws and weaknesses in our arguments and forced us to better present and support our ideas or to change them in the face of compelling evidence that they were not altogether correct. We were taught not what to think but how to think. Open and free debate was the path to arriving at the best answer, particularly debating the arguments that we found most disagreeable.

What Bobo proposes is that faculty speak only to other faculty, students, and Harvard administrators; no one else needs to be involved in discussing whats going on at Harvard. The university has many constituencies beyond faculty, students, and administrators, however. There are thousands of alumni for example. Harvard is also a renowned international institution that serves as the base for many who engage in public debates around the world. And Harvard is the recipient of millions of dollars of government support $676 million in fiscal 2023 alone.

In countries like China and Russia, one is punished if they present an idea that is classified as antipatriotic or that is deemed to promote a foreign ideology. Is this truly the direction that Harvard should now be turning?

Bobos call for punishing heretics is difficult to understand in light of surveys that year after year demonstrate that self-censorship, by students and faculty, is a significant issue at Harvard and other schools. The degree to which students and faculty withhold their views diminishes materially the intellectual experience that many come to Harvard to realize and detracts from the public debate on how to improve the university. It is also difficult to reconcile Bobos proposal with steps that have been taken in the past year to foster more open dialogue at Harvard and to create a culture of civility and tolerance.

As for the external actors that Bobo is concerned about, he identifies them as including alumni, donors, federal agencies, and the government.

I dont know if Bobo intended it this way, but its difficult to accept his assertion as anything less than an insult to the thousands of alumni who care deeply about Harvard and its mission and who donate their time and money generously to support the university.

As for the government, it provides millions of dollars each year to support university operations and provide financial aid to many students. The government is also responsible for ensuring that Harvard complies with its legal obligations. Notable examples include Title VI of the Civil Rights Act that prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin and Title IX of the same act that prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex. The government often rewards and the media frequently heralds whistleblowers who speak out about wrongdoing. Bobo seems to prefer to retaliate.

Our own personal views are that universities should provide their faculty and students considerable latitude to speak, so we believe Bobo should be free to express his personal views however misguided we regard them to be.

This latitude to express personal views, however, must be evaluated more broadly when the speaker also serves as an administrator who controls the careers of faculty, a considerable budget, and the ability to influence curriculum. When an administrator such as Bobo wields such power while advocating for curtailing one of the most fundamental aspects of academic freedom and free speech, members of the Harvard community must know that he is exercising his authority to promote the highest principles and best interests of the university first and foremost and not personal views that are anathema to those fundamental freedoms.

Interim president Alan Garber, interim provost John Manning, the Harvard Corporation, and the Harvard Board of Overseers should all speak publicly to the issue that Bobo has raised. Is Harvard moving forward toward open dialogue and greater academic freedom or will it cling to the strand of illiberalism that has stained the university in recent years?

John Evangelakos, Jason H.P. Kravitt, and William Schmalzl are Harvard alumni and former partners at international law firms. They participated in founding Harvard Alumni for Free Speech.

Go here to see the original:
Opinion | Harvard should embrace free speech, not sanction it - The Boston Globe

I was a student in the late 2000s when I had my first brush with cancel culture. A campus group had invited Nick Griffin a racist Holocaust denier and leader of a fascist British political party, among other charming things to speak.

Many shocked students, including me, called Griffins views vile and warned violent extremists might come to support him. Eventually, the group rethought the invitation and canceled the event. Thank heavens.

No ones speech had been denied. Others exercised their own.

Yet, a few short years later, campus protests like these became a bete noire for right-wing politicians, who produced countless diatribes against woke mobs and the free speech crisis on campus. Then, with ample backing from well-heeled donors, they launched an actual war on speech on campus and beyond.

Protests have never been a threat to speech it is free speech. What weve learned is that the real danger is inequality.

Consider this springs campus protests against Israels war on Gaza and U.S. support for it.

Conservative politicians whod thrown fits over free speech on campus cheered as police officers roughed up and arrested student protesters. Some even called to deploy the National Guard, which infamously murdered four Kent State students during the Vietnam War era.

Meanwhile, billionaire CEOs like Bill Ackman led campaigns to out students whod participated in the protests and blacklist them from employment.

Cynically casting these often Jewish-led protests as antisemitic, Rep. Elise Stefanik, R-N.Y. who has a history of embracing antisemitic conspiracy theories hauled several university presidents before Congress to answer for why the protests hadnt been shut down more brutally.

When University of Pennsylvania President Liz Magill feebly defended the First Amendment, a $100 million donor complained and Magill was compelled to resign. Under similar donor pressure, Harvard President Claudine Gay followed suit. And Stefanik? She raked in campaign cash.

Of course, high-end donors are also shaping what can and cant be said inside the classroom.

Corporate and billionaire-backed groups like the American Legislative Exchange Council and Of The People have poured enormous sums into backing laws that ban books, restrict what history can and cant be taught, and severely curtail classroom instruction on race, gender or sexuality.

Many public libraries and universities face defunding for carrying materials these billionaire-backed politicians dont like. And, in some red states, teachers and school librarians may now face felony charges for running afoul of state censors.

In other cases, the public square itself is falling under sustained assault from extreme wealth. For example, after spending a fortune to buy Twitter, billionaire Elon Musk proclaimed himself a free speech absolutist and promptly eliminated nearly all content moderation.

But perhaps absolutist was a relative term.

As threats and hate speech predictably flooded the platform, Musk threatened a thermonuclear lawsuit against a watchdog group that cataloged the growing trend. He also appeared to suspend journalists who covered him critically and otherwise censored users who espoused causes he didnt care for, like LGBTQ rights or racial justice.

A parallel problem has played out more quietly in local news, with beleaguered American newspapers now outnumbered by dark money pink slime news sites, which peddle misinformation while posing as local news outlets.

Lying, of course, is usually protected speech. But when its backed by big money and linked to a sustained, state-backed assault on speech to the contrary, then weve badly warped the field on which free speech is supposed to play out.

Similarly, when the Supreme Court rules that cash payments even bribes are free speech, those of us with less cash have less free speech.

Extreme inequality threatens our First Amendment right not only to speak freely but to assemble together and petition our representatives.

Alongside real campaign finance reform and anti-corruption laws, higher taxes on billionaires and corporations would leave them with less money to spend warping our politics, classrooms and public squares. So would stronger unions that can win pay raises and social movements that protect their communities from retribution.

If we want equal rights to speech, we need a more equal country.

Peter Certo, communications director of the Institute for Policy Studies and editor of its OtherWords.org op-ed service, wrote this for InsideSources.com.

Here is the original post:
Counterpoint: Extreme inequality is the real threat to free speech - TribLIVE

AsFIRE reported last Thursday, the U.S. Department of Educations Office for Civil Rights has begun to release conclusions of its investigations into ethnic discrimination complaints filed over thecampus protests and counterprotests regarding the Israel-Hamas war, starting with its findings regarding the University of Michigan, the City University of New York system, and Lafayette College.

As FIREs research and advocacy has shown, colleges are notoriously bad at investigating accusations of harassment, though Lafayette College comes off better than the other two. While the CUNY and University of Michigan resolution letters are heavily and unjustifiably redacted, even what remains suggests the institutions let political motivations or personal preferences guide some of their responses to complaints. For example, theCUNY resolution letter recounts an incident at Brooklyn College where white students were told to keep quiet over allegations that Jewish students were being bullied on campus:

The complaint alleged that on [redacted content] 2020, a student (Student E) spoke to the Deputy Director regarding Student Es concerns about the bullying and harassment that Jewish students were experiencing (Report 1). The complaint asserted that the Deputy Director responded by stating that white students [redacted content] (Student F) should keep quiet and keep their heads down and that Student Es [redacted content] would not save Student E. . . . The complaint asserted that Student E also interpreted the Deputy Directors comment to imply that because Student E is [redacted content], she is considered [redacted content] and privileged.

Even with OCRs excessive redactions, if this account is anywhere near accurate, its impossible to imagine it could be an appropriate response by CUNY to a complaint of ethnic discrimination. TheMichigan resolution letter also outlines some complaints the school may have mishandled, including one that took more than four months to investigate, as well as confusion over where and how to report alleged discrimination.

The chilling message is clear: To avoid federal anti-discrimination investigations, schools will have little choice but to violate the First Amendment.

Read More

In contrast, theLafayette resolution letter paints a far more positive picture of the schools behavior. While Lafayette College is private, itpromises students freedom of speech. OCR describes Lafayettes policy as saying that when speech or conduct is protected by academic freedom and/or the First Amendment, it will not be considered a violation of College policy, though supportive measures will be offered to those impacted.

And Lafayette appears to have consistently tried to address complaints about controversial speech on campus and on social media while refusing to explicitly censor students political opinions. Yet OCRs conclusion issomehow the same as at CUNY or Michigan: The college failed to meet its obligations underTitle VI, the federal law prohibiting discrimination on the basis of race, color, and national origin in programs and activities receiving federal financial assistance, which includes nearly all colleges. (Title IX applies to sex discrimination.)

The Lafayette letter leads off with a description of an Oct. 25, 2023 rally on campus where a pro-Palestinian student held up a poster saying From the River to the Sea, a well-known slogan pro-Israel advocates interpret as a call for elimination of Israel as a state, and possibly also the removal or killing of all Jewish people in the area between the Jordan River and Mediterranean Sea. As with nearly everything surrounding this issue, the meaning is hotly debated, but as FIRE Legal Director Will Creeleywrote last year, simply uttering the phrase without any other form of threatening language or conduct is protected under the First Amendment.

Students immediately met with Lafayettes president to complain about the poster, and the College Chaplain (who is also chair of Lafayettes Bias Response Team, its Director of Educational Equity, and its Title IX Coordinator) called the student who held the poster and informed the student that the phrase was hurtful and could be viewed as antisemitic.

Lafayettes president also emailed the campus community about the poster, and the campus group that organized the protest issueda letter saying we stand against and detest hate speech. Our core values include combating antisemitism, Islamophobia, and oppression in all forms.

A few days later, the chaplain met with the poster-holding student again, who said he wouldnt hold that poster again in future protests. (Its not clear whether the student actually changed his mind about the slogan or was just scared into silence.)

OCR followed this with a recounting of 11 other incidents of alleged harassment on the basis of shared ancestry that were reported during the fall 2023 semester, according to theinvestigation. Six of these appear solely related to social media posts featuring protected speech that the reporting party found offensive. This included statements such as a post compar[ing] a Palestinian dying with Jesus dying, and stat[ing] Same Picture, Same Land, Same Perpetrator, a meme depicting an Israel Defense Forces soldier as the same as a Nazi soldier and states The irony of becoming what you once hated, and the allegation that Israel kills a Palestinian baby every 15 minutes.

In each case, OCR describes some action the college took in response to the complaint. In response to the post about Jesus (OCR calls it Incident 1), an internal college email noted (correctly) that the post does not appear to be a direct threat or targeted at any specific individual. With that being said, this would fall within the students free speech in their personal social media account.

Its hard to see what else Lafayette could have done to try to address the allegedly hostile environment on its campus without actually descending into censorship.

The College Chaplain then informed the reporting student that it was a free speech issue and offered the reporting student supportive services.

In response to the post comparing the IDF to Nazis (Incident 4), the college again found (correctly) the speech was protected, but nonetheless, the College Chaplain offered to have a mediated conversation with the reporting student and respondent student, but the reporting student declined. In each of the six incidents involving social media, the school followed a similar course: declining to punish the student for speech while trying to intervene and educate in other ways.

But that didnt seem to matter to OCR. In fact, OCR seems to have flatly misstated what the college did in response to these reports. In the legal analysis section of its report on Lafayette College, OCR writes:

Based on the evidence to date, OCR is concerned that notwithstanding the Colleges many efforts to respond proactively to prevent the operation of a hostile environment based on shared ancestry during fall 2023, the Colleges practices particularly with respect to notice of harassing conduct on social media were not reasonably designed, as required by Title VI, to redress any hostile environment. The College appears to have operated a categorical policy not to address allegations of harassment on private social media as distinct from social media of a College-recognized student group as in Incident 9 unless the harassment constituted a direct threat. This practice does not satisfy the Title VI obligation to take prompt and effective steps to redress a hostile environment about which the College knows; that requirement is not limited to conduct that occurs on campus or outside social media.

It is simply untrue to say Lafayette had a categorical policy not to address allegations of harassment on private social media. OCR knows this, as it describes what the college did to respond to such allegations in the very same letter (specifically, what OCR labels Incidents 1, 2, 4, and 5).

Now, Lafayette did have a policy of not formally punishing students or student groups for their protected speech on social media, which is what FIRE recommends. But in every incident discussed, the college tried to dosomething to address the complaint, even if the reporting party was ultimately unresponsive. If anything, Lafayette was a bit heavy-handed: Most students would think twice about posting on Instagram after being called on the carpet by the college chaplain to discuss their political opinions. (Indeed, it was only five years ago that theSixth Circuit took issue with University of Michigans bias response team for similar speech-chilling activity.)

The First Amendment protects a vast range of speech and expressive conduct. But it doesnt protect all speech and expressive conduct.

Read More

Its hard to see what else Lafayette could have done to try to address the allegedly hostile environment on its campus without actually descending into censorship. Along with the interventions discussed above, it held meetings with multiple Jewish, interfaith, and Greek student groups and held an interfaith vigil after the October 7 attack. It even provided OCR with affidavits . . . that the College is a good place to be a Jewish student, and that none had observed or heard from Jewish students that they felt that there was any pattern of harassment or discrimination.

That didnt matter. Nor did it matter that those affidavits were from the Director of Hillel Society, the former Director of Hillel Society, the current Chair of Jewish Studies, and the campus police lieutenant, all of whom had some reason to know.

College documents reflect that it did not address whether social media and off campus conduct individually or collectively created or contributed to a hostile environment based on shared ancestry, which does not satisfy Title VI, according to OCR. Yet Lafayette tried everything to address the complaintsexcept formally punish students for their speech.

The implication is thus clear: the only way to satisfy OCR that your institution is obeying the law is to silence offensive speech, regardless of the First Amendment or college policies protecting students rights. For an agency prevented by the First Amendment from requiring institutions to censor protected speech, that implication is disturbing indeed.

Read more here:
Fed investigation of Lafayette College over Israel-Hamas protests highlights new threat to free speech - Foundation for Individual Rights and...

During my second week as the new executive director of the ACLU of Indiana, I found myself in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee testifying against Senate Bill 17, an online age verification bill supporters claim is aimed at preventing minors from accessing pornography.

You can imagine how popular that made me with the other parents of teenagers in my neighborhood. Nonetheless, the position was the right one to take to protect the Constitutional rights of Hoosier adults.

The bill passed the legislature, was signed by the governor, and was scheduled to take effect this week. Fast forward to last Friday, when Pornhub, the most visited pornography website in the United States (and the countrys 10th most visited website of any kind) blocked access to its site in Indiana because of our states age-verification law. In announcing their plans, Pornhubs parent company explained in a statement, Any regulations that require hundreds of thousands of adult sites to collect significant amounts of highly sensitive personal information is putting user safety in jeopardy.

Led by the Free Speech Coalition, Pornhub, other websites, and individual performers filed suit against the state. Late last week, US District Court Judge Richard Young put Senate Enrolled Act 17 on hold because he found that it was likely facially unconstitutional under the First Amendment. In other words, it is likely the law is unconstitutional in toto.

The ACLU of Indiana strongly agrees with this decision. The First Amendment doesnt just protect a speaker, but also those who want to hear what someone is saying. And in the case of constitutional protections, speech is interpreted broadly to include video productions, including pornography. Protecting free speech is not a theoretical exercise. Today, local and state government officials in Indiana are threatening free speech in our libraries, schools, universities, public spaces, and online.

Regardless of how you personally feel about pornography, you should be concerned when the government makes it harder for adults to access it. And a government that is allowed to infringe on free speech because the subject matter is sexual in nature will expand that power to infringe on free speech because it contains ideas that they think are harmful.

The state isnt prohibited from taking any action to help parents keep their children safe. They are just required to do so in a way that accomplishes the states goal while creating the least burden on adults constitutional rights. For instance, they can fund and launch a public education campaign to help parents filter pornography online and can make filtering software more available. Neither of which will affect access for adults.

And you dont have to take my word for it that age verification will negatively affect access for adults. The Indiana Catholic Conference testified in front of the House Judiciary Committee that they supported the legislation, in part, because age verification would change an adults interaction with [a pornography] site. They said that age verification would lead some adults to leave a particular site instead of going through the process.

Even though Sen. Mike Bohacek, author of SB 17, testified that the motivation for the bill was to protect minors, supporters of the bill who are morally opposed to pornography see a larger benefit of the law. This is the exact kind of government overreach that courts have said violates the First Amendment.

When the ACLU of Indiana testified on age verification during session, we told Statehouse leaders that there are effective alternatives that are constitutionally permissible. We also told them wed work with them on these alternatives. We remain hopeful that theyll take us up on it.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX

SUBSCRIBE

See the original post here:
Free speech is why it's important that adult Hoosiers have access to Pornhub Indiana Capital Chronicle - Indiana Capital Chronicle

The Supreme Court isnt going to rule on a case that could fundamentally change how we think about the First Amendment as it applies to the internet. But within its indecision came one decision: Social media has at least some First Amendment protections, the court said.

Netflix and 3 other stocks to buy right now, according to a strategist

The high court on Monday sent two cases brought by a social media trade group against Texas and Florida back to lower courts. The two states passed similar laws in 2021 prohibiting social media companies from removing user-generated content based on political viewpoints. NetChoice, an industry trade group that represents companies such as Meta and TikTok, and the Computer & Communications Industry Association (CCIA) sued both states over the laws, saying they force companies to host speech on their platforms against their will. The cases made their way to the Supreme Court in February.

But the justices on Monday vacated lower courts rulings and sent the cases back for reconsideration. Those courts had handled each case differently, upholding the Texas law and striking down key parts of the Florida law. The Supreme Court said the lower courts didnt do a good enough job analyzing the cases.

Justice Elena Kagan said in her opinion that the question in such a case is whether a laws unconstitutional applications are substantial compared to its constitutional ones.

To make that judgment, she wrote, a court must determine a laws full set of applications, evaluate which are constitutional and which are not, and compare the one to the other. Neither court performed that necessary inquiry.

NetChoice saw the ruling as a win. Thats because, in sending the cases back to the lower courts, the justices also said that social media companies have First Amendment rights. Lawyers for Texas and Florida had argued that the sites did not have such protections.

Todays ruling from the Supreme Court is a victory for First Amendment rights online, Chris Marchese, director of NetChoices litigation center, said in a statement. As our cases head back to the lower courts for consideration, the Supreme Court agreed with all our First Amendment argumentswe are gratified to see the Supreme Court acknowledge the Constitutions unparalleled protections for free speech, including the worlds most important communications tool, the internet.

Kagan said that, to the extent social media platforms create expressive products, they receive the First Amendments protections. And although these cases are here in a preliminary posture, the current record suggests that some platforms, in at least some functions, are indeed engaged in expression.

Zephyr Teachout, a Fordham law professor, wrote in The Atlantic in February that a platforms decision to ban a certain user or prohibit a particular point of view can have a dramatic influence on public discourse and the political process.

Leaving that much power in the hands of a tiny number of unregulated private entities poses serious problems in a democracy, Teachout added.

Here is the original post:
The Supreme Court won't decide Big Tech's free speech fight with Florida and Texas - Quartz

The marketplace of ideas is under attack. The front lines have formed on university campuses. And remarkably, universities are leading the charge.

Within the last year, law students at Stanford and Yale shouted down speakers with whom they disagreed. Encampments raged at Columbia, University of Chicago, Florida, UCLA, and other schools. Stanford students participating in a protest march entered an engineering building, constructed makeshift barriers, and spray-painted a wall all while other students were working in the building.

The protesting students invoked freedom of speech, and administrators all too often agreed. Both groups were wrong, and it is time that universities start teaching them why.

At least at law schools, some instruction is in the offing. Confronted with growing threats to campus speech, the American Bar Association recently adopted Standard 208, which requires all law schools to adopt policies protecting the rights of faculty, students, and staff to communicate ideas that may be controversial or unpopular. [F]ree, robust, and uninhibited sharing of ideas reflecting a wide range of viewpoints, the ABA now acknowledges, is necessary for [e]ffective legal education and the development of the law.

Standard 208 is an encouraging first step, but it is not enough.To educate students effectively, law schools need to do at least two more things: (1)reconsider policies that undermine free speech, and (2)enforce permissible restrictions on expression that threatens operations or student safety.

MIT just announced that it will no longer require diversity statements from prospective faculty members. Why?Not because it believes that creating an inclusive community is no longer important.Rather, MIT recognizes that compelled statements not only are ineffective, but also infringe on freedom of expression.

Requiring faculty candidates to explain how their work supports a university-approved worldview impedes robust and open discussion.It sends a clear and powerful institutional message: If you want to be hired, promoted, or tenured, champion the schools viewpoint, or, at a minimum, remain silent and hope your silence is not held against you.

Challenging established orthodoxies is virtually impossible, however, when a school requires everyone to sing from the same ideological hymnal.To avoid stifling debate, schools must remain institutionally neutral on social, political, religious, and moral issues. As University of Chicagos Kalven Committee Report emphasized, [t]he university is the home and sponsor of critics; it is not itself the critic.

Just last month, Harvard decided it was finally time to adopt a version of the Kalven Report, pledging to (generally) remain institutionally neutral on public policy issues. Other universities should follow suit.Instead of taking sides on contested topics, universities should shape social and political values by training faculty, students, and staff to be active participants in researching, debating, and writing about the important issues of the day.

Unfortunately, not all academics share this vision. In the wake of former Harvard president Claudine Gays ouster, the dean of social sciences at Harvard penned an op-ed contending that professors have diminished speech protection and that they can and should be punished for public statements that might incite external actors (such as alumni and donors) to intervene in Harvards affairs.

Threats to academic freedom also are found closer to home.Following some (undisclosed) student complaints about course content and conduct, UNC Chapel Hills business school secretly recorded Professor Larry Chaviss economics class, using the footage as part of an unannounced professional review.UNC then declined to renew Professor Chaviss contract after 18 years of teaching without telling him the reason for his dismissal or the specifics of the complaints. One can almost feel the chilling effect on speech emanating from Harvard and UNC.

Administrators and academics would do well to remember United States v. Alvarez, a case in which the Supreme Court explained that [f]reedom of speech and thought flows not from the beneficence of the state but from the inalienable rights of the person. Those freedoms do not flow from the university either, and for good reasons. Adopting a school-approved view pressures members of the academic community to conform or remain silent. This pressure is especially acute for students, staff, and junior/contract faculty members, all of whom must rely on the administration for so many aspects of their professional development and livelihood a lesson Professor Chavis painfully learned.

Furthermore, universities must make clear that freedom of expression is not absolute. Certain speech is unprotected (e.g., true threats, fighting words, obscenity, and defamation) and can be prohibited consistent with the Constitution and Standard 208. Reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions also are permissible to enable schools to carry out their educational mission.

Even when convinced that one holds the moral high ground, there is no hecklers veto, no right to preclude others from exercising their speech rights or to interfere with the safe operation of the school. Universities exist to educate all, not just the most vocal or disruptive.

A university has the authority indeed, the responsibility to remove encampments, like those that recently popped up on campuses across the country, when they violate these viewpoint-neutral principles. Granted, determining when and how to stop disruptive protests may be difficult.But teaching students to engage controversial issues through reasoned argument and debate is essential to a universitys mission, especially in a divided nation.

Now is a critical time for institutions of higher learning, and there are reasons to hope for a rebirth of freedom of expression, properly understood.Last year, the University of North Carolina Board of Trustees unanimously approved the creation of a new school at UNC Chapel Hill committed to free expression. And the University of Austin has promised students, faculty, and scholars the right to pursue their academic interests and deliberate freely, without fear of censorship or retribution.

In addition, High Point University is opening a new law school that will champion free speech principles.As part of the inaugural faculty at HPU law school, we are building a program rooted in freedom of thought, inquiry, and expression to train lawyers who are equipped to represent their clients effectively and to lead in an increasingly polarized world.

Protest is an important and powerful form of expression. But so is reasoned argument in defense of a contrary position.Universities should remain neutral caretakers of both.

Link:
Reestablishing universities as guardians of free speech - Carolina Journal

I was a student in the late 2000s when I had my first brush with cancel culture. A campus group had invited Nick Griffin a racist Holocaust denier and leader of a fascist British political party, among other charming things to speak.

Many shocked students, including me, called Griffins views vile and warned that violent extremists might come to support him. Eventually, the group rethought the invitation and canceled the event. Thank heavens.

No ones speech had been denied. Others exercised their own.

Yet, a few short years later, campus protests like these became a bete noire for right-wing politicians, who produced countless diatribes against woke mobs and the free speech crisis on campus. Then, with ample backing from well-heeled donors, they launched an actual war on speech on campus and beyond.

Protests have never been a threat to speech it is free speech. What weve learned is that the real danger is inequality.

Consider this springs campus protests against Israels war on Gaza and U.S. support for it.

Conservative politicians whod thrown fits over free speech on campus cheered as police officers roughed up and arrested student protesters. Some even called to deploy the National Guard, which infamously murdered four Kent State students during the Vietnam War era.

Meanwhile, billionaire CEOs like Bill Ackman led campaigns to out students whod participated in the protests and blacklist them from employment.

Cynically casting these often Jewish-led protests as antisemitic, Rep. Elise Stefanik, R-N.Y. who has a history of embracing antisemitic conspiracy theories hauled several university presidents before Congress to answer for why the protests hadnt been shut down more brutally.

When University of Pennsylvania President Liz Magill feebly defended the First Amendment, a $100 million donor complained and Magill was compelled to resign. Under similar donor pressure, Harvard President Claudine Gay followed suit. And Stefanik? She raked in campaign cash.

Of course, high-end donors are also shaping what can and cant be said inside the classroom.

Corporate and billionaire-backed groups like the American Legislative Exchange Council and Of The People have poured enormous sums into backing laws that ban books, restrict what history can and cant be taught, and severely curtail classroom instruction on race, gender or sexuality.

Many public libraries and universities face defunding for carrying materials these billionaire-backed politicians dont like. And in some red states, teachers and school librarians may now face felony charges for running afoul of state censors.

In other cases, the public square itself is falling under sustained assault from extreme wealth. For example, after spending a fortune to buy Twitter, billionaire Elon Musk proclaimed himself a free speech absolutist and promptly eliminated nearly all content moderation.

But perhaps absolutist was a relative term.

As threats and hate speech predictably flooded the platform, Musk threatened a thermonuclear lawsuit against a watchdog group that cataloged the growing trend. He also appeared to suspend journalists who covered him critically and otherwise censored users who espoused causes he didnt care for, like LGBTQ rights or racial justice.

A parallel problem has played out more quietly in local news, with beleaguered American newspapers now outnumbered by dark money pink slime news sites, which peddle misinformation while posing as local news outlets.

Lying, of course, is usually protected speech. But when its backed by big money and linked to a sustained, state-backed assault on speech to the contrary, then weve badly warped the field on which free speech is supposed to play out.

Similarly, when the Supreme Court rules that cash payments even bribes are free speech, those of us with less cash have less free speech.

Extreme inequality threatens our First Amendment right not only to speak freely but to assemble together and petition our representatives.

Alongside real campaign finance reform and anti-corruption laws, higher taxes on billionaires and corporations would leave them with less money to spend warping our politics, classrooms and public squares.

So would stronger unions that can win pay raises and social movements that protect their communities from retribution.

If we want equal rights to speech, we need a more equal country.

Read the rest here:
Two Views: Extreme inequality is the real threat to free speech - The Sun Chronicle

State Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington Washington D.C. West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Puerto Rico US Virgin Islands Armed Forces Americas Armed Forces Pacific Armed Forces Europe Northern Mariana Islands Marshall Islands American Samoa Federated States of Micronesia Guam Palau Alberta, Canada British Columbia, Canada Manitoba, Canada New Brunswick, Canada Newfoundland, Canada Nova Scotia, Canada Northwest Territories, Canada Nunavut, Canada Ontario, Canada Prince Edward Island, Canada Quebec, Canada Saskatchewan, Canada Yukon Territory, Canada

Zip Code

Country United States of America US Virgin Islands United States Minor Outlying Islands Canada Mexico, United Mexican States Bahamas, Commonwealth of the Cuba, Republic of Dominican Republic Haiti, Republic of Jamaica Afghanistan Albania, People's Socialist Republic of Algeria, People's Democratic Republic of American Samoa Andorra, Principality of Angola, Republic of Anguilla Antarctica (the territory South of 60 deg S) Antigua and Barbuda Argentina, Argentine Republic Armenia Aruba Australia, Commonwealth of Austria, Republic of Azerbaijan, Republic of Bahrain, Kingdom of Bangladesh, People's Republic of Barbados Belarus Belgium, Kingdom of Belize Benin, People's Republic of Bermuda Bhutan, Kingdom of Bolivia, Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina Botswana, Republic of Bouvet Island (Bouvetoya) Brazil, Federative Republic of British Indian Ocean Territory (Chagos Archipelago) British Virgin Islands Brunei Darussalam Bulgaria, People's Republic of Burkina Faso Burundi, Republic of Cambodia, Kingdom of Cameroon, United Republic of Cape Verde, Republic of Cayman Islands Central African Republic Chad, Republic of Chile, Republic of China, People's Republic of Christmas Island Cocos (Keeling) Islands Colombia, Republic of Comoros, Union of the Congo, Democratic Republic of Congo, People's Republic of Cook Islands Costa Rica, Republic of Cote D'Ivoire, Ivory Coast, Republic of the Cyprus, Republic of Czech Republic Denmark, Kingdom of Djibouti, Republic of Dominica, Commonwealth of Ecuador, Republic of Egypt, Arab Republic of El Salvador, Republic of Equatorial Guinea, Republic of Eritrea Estonia Ethiopia Faeroe Islands Falkland Islands (Malvinas) Fiji, Republic of the Fiji Islands Finland, Republic of France, French Republic French Guiana French Polynesia French Southern Territories Gabon, Gabonese Republic Gambia, Republic of the Georgia Germany Ghana, Republic of Gibraltar Greece, Hellenic Republic Greenland Grenada Guadaloupe Guam Guatemala, Republic of Guinea, Revolutionary People's Rep'c of Guinea-Bissau, Republic of Guyana, Republic of Heard and McDonald Islands Holy See (Vatican City State) Honduras, Republic of Hong Kong, Special Administrative Region of China Hrvatska (Croatia) Hungary, Hungarian People's Republic Iceland, Republic of India, Republic of Indonesia, Republic of Iran, Islamic Republic of Iraq, Republic of Ireland Israel, State of Italy, Italian Republic Japan Jordan, Hashemite Kingdom of Kazakhstan, Republic of Kenya, Republic of Kiribati, Republic of Korea, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Republic of Kuwait, State of Kyrgyz Republic Lao People's Democratic Republic Latvia Lebanon, Lebanese Republic Lesotho, Kingdom of Liberia, Republic of Libyan Arab Jamahiriya Liechtenstein, Principality of Lithuania Luxembourg, Grand Duchy of Macao, Special Administrative Region of China Macedonia, the former Yugoslav Republic of Madagascar, Republic of Malawi, Republic of Malaysia Maldives, Republic of Mali, Republic of Malta, Republic of Marshall Islands Martinique Mauritania, Islamic Republic of Mauritius Mayotte Micronesia, Federated States of Moldova, Republic of Monaco, Principality of Mongolia, Mongolian People's Republic Montserrat Morocco, Kingdom of Mozambique, People's Republic of Myanmar Namibia Nauru, Republic of Nepal, Kingdom of Netherlands Antilles Netherlands, Kingdom of the New Caledonia New Zealand Nicaragua, Republic of Niger, Republic of the Nigeria, Federal Republic of Niue, Republic of Norfolk Island Northern Mariana Islands Norway, Kingdom of Oman, Sultanate of Pakistan, Islamic Republic of Palau Palestinian Territory, Occupied Panama, Republic of Papua New Guinea Paraguay, Republic of Peru, Republic of Philippines, Republic of the Pitcairn Island Poland, Polish People's Republic Portugal, Portuguese Republic Puerto Rico Qatar, State of Reunion Romania, Socialist Republic of Russian Federation Rwanda, Rwandese Republic Samoa, Independent State of San Marino, Republic of Sao Tome and Principe, Democratic Republic of Saudi Arabia, Kingdom of Senegal, Republic of Serbia and Montenegro Seychelles, Republic of Sierra Leone, Republic of Singapore, Republic of Slovakia (Slovak Republic) Slovenia Solomon Islands Somalia, Somali Republic South Africa, Republic of South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands Spain, Spanish State Sri Lanka, Democratic Socialist Republic of St. Helena St. Kitts and Nevis St. Lucia St. Pierre and Miquelon St. Vincent and the Grenadines Sudan, Democratic Republic of the Suriname, Republic of Svalbard & Jan Mayen Islands Swaziland, Kingdom of Sweden, Kingdom of Switzerland, Swiss Confederation Syrian Arab Republic Taiwan, Province of China Tajikistan Tanzania, United Republic of Thailand, Kingdom of Timor-Leste, Democratic Republic of Togo, Togolese Republic Tokelau (Tokelau Islands) Tonga, Kingdom of Trinidad and Tobago, Republic of Tunisia, Republic of Turkey, Republic of Turkmenistan Turks and Caicos Islands Tuvalu Uganda, Republic of Ukraine United Arab Emirates United Kingdom of Great Britain & N. Ireland Uruguay, Eastern Republic of Uzbekistan Vanuatu Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of Viet Nam, Socialist Republic of Wallis and Futuna Islands Western Sahara Yemen Zambia, Republic of Zimbabwe

Read the rest here:
Mitchell Oakley: Court's decision is a blow to free speech - The Daily Reflector

As a young lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union, David Goldberger defended the rights of Nazis to hold a demonstration in Skokie, Ill., a village that was home to many Jewish residents, including hundreds of Holocaust survivors. The famous case, which set the course of his legal career, also led to a historic First Amendment ruling by the US Supreme Court, which was issued in June 1977 47 years ago.

When speech today can so quickly be labeled and censored as antisemitic, would he take up such a cause again? Yes, he said. But Id have a bigger lump in my throat now than I did back then, Goldberger, 82, told me in an interview. When it comes to free speech in America, he sees a hugely disappointing retreat. We fought like hell to establish these rights and it seems like, frankly, they are really under siege, he said. Here we go again.

To think it would be harder in 2024 to fight for free speech than it was in 1977 is somewhat stunning, isnt it? Or maybe not, given the backlash to assorted civil and constitutional rights that were fought for and won over the past half century.

Goldberger is known for calling out the political left and the ACLU for what he sees as failing to defend speech from the right that they find bigoted and hateful. As he told The New York Times in 2021, Liberals are leaving the First Amendment behind. Now, the crackdown on protests over the Israel-Hamas war is putting progressives on the losing end of the free speech debate. It seems to me theres an inability to understand that heated discourse isnt pleasant and it hurts feelings, Goldberger said. But thats not a reason to censor it and suppress it on both sides.

When it comes to protecting speech rather than censoring it, and the courage it takes to do it, there is a lot to be learned from the Supreme Court case National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie. As Goldberger recounted in 2020 for the ACLU, it all began in April 1977 when he got a call from the leader of the Chicago-based Nazi group, who told him local officials wanted to stop them from demonstrating in front of the Skokie Village Hall, wearing Nazi uniforms with swastika armbands and carrying Nazi banners and signs with the words Free Speech for White People. With backing from the ACLU, Goldberger agreed to represent them. After a judge issued a preliminary injunction, the ACLU appealed. When the state court of appeals and Illinois Supreme Court ignored them, the ACLU went directly to the US Supreme Court.

In a 5-4 ruling, the Supreme Court ordered the Illinois courts to rule on the injunction or allow the Nazis to demonstrate. Not doing so, will deprive them of rights protected by the First Amendment, the Supreme Court held. After another year of court battles, the right to demonstrate was ultimately upheld. In the end, the Nazis chose to demonstrate in downtown Chicago, not Skokie. Because tempers were running so high, I moved my family out of our house for the weekend of the demonstration, Goldberger wrote. When we returned, I found that someone had thrown eggs at our front door.

Eggs were the least of what he faced. He was also called a traitorous Jew and feared for his safety. As he also wrote, To this day, the case still brings up difficult feelings about representing a client whose constitutional rights were being violated but who represented the hatred and bigotry that continues to erupt into Americas consciousness. But Goldberger stood by the principle he still embraces that maintaining those rights for everyone, regardless of political ideology, is key to maintaining a healthy democracy.

As Goldberger also notes, Nazis who want to demonstrate on public property have First Amendment rights that are not shared by protesters who set up encampments at private universities. However, to Goldberger, acknowledging that distinction doesnt solve the problem. They are still universities, places where there should be robust debate and even heated debate.

Even with legal authority to clear out encampments, he thinks university administrators should apply a different standard. I wish the university administrators would hold their fire and, as a matter of course, treat the exchange of viewpoints and arguments and heated debate as something that belongs there, rather than as the enemy. I also wish that the kids had a better idea where the boundaries are, he said. Goldberger said he has heard a disappointing amount of directed antisemitism in those college encampments. On the other hand, I cant get past the feeling that some of the counterprotesters have been claiming antisemitism as a weapon and a tool.

Asked about college administrators who say that encampments are a public safety threat, Goldberger said, Frankly, some of that is nonsense, pure nonsense. Where the encampments have been orderly and have not been physically threatening, whats the public safety issue? Its a device used by some university administrators to justify the feeling they cant stand the heat. That heat, he said, is coming from Congress and alums.

After working for the Illinois ACLU as staff attorney and legal director, Goldberger took a teaching position at the Moritz College of Law at Ohio State University. Following the Skokie case, he was involved with three more First Amendment cases that ended up before the Supreme Court, representing right-leaning clients who included the Ku Klux Klan. He currently serves on the legal advisory team of the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression. If he had not retired from practicing law, he said he would be more than willing to represent pro-Palestinian protesters with legitimate First Amendment claims and peaceful ... encampment protesters facing school disciplinary proceedings. I say this because I am concerned that in many cases there was no need to clear the encampments other than to please self-aggrandizing politicians and pressure from donors, he said.

The controversy associated with Skokie has not faded. Goldberger said he was nervous when he first moved into a Maryland retirement community because other residents, some of whom are Jewish, knew about his past. He was invited to give a presentation about it during which, he said, a lot of people agreed with me and a lot of people disagreed. Thats healthy.

To Goldberger, that is what Skokie was all about and that is what free speech is all about. If only the rest of the country could see it that simply.

Joan Vennochi is a Globe columnist. She can be reached at joan.vennochi@globe.com. Follow her @joan_vennochi.

Read this article:
Opinion | Lessons on free speech from David Goldberger - The Boston Globe